C.S. Murphy
New Member
Now once again here is my question and I don't think it was asked and answered. Where do you feel that this reunion will take place if I am wrong and your baby was not elected to go to heaven. I Just want to know.
Murph
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who goes to Heaven?
- Thread starter yardane
- Start date
Murph
Bible-belted
New Member
Now once again here is my question and I don't think it was asked and answered. Where do you feel that this reunion will take place if I am wrong and your baby was not elected to go to heaven. I Just want to know.
Murph[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Sigh...
It has been asked and answered Murph.
Your problem is in saying that if you are wrong then Morgan is not elected to go to heaven. That is not the case. Morgan may still be elected for heaven even if (more like "even though") you are wrong. That's why I've been pointing out repeatedly that I am not saying that no babies go to heaven. You are the one making all or nothing statements here, not me. So it is entirely possible that Morgan may be elect, and in that case I will we two will be reunited. If he is not elect, then obviously we won't be. There are, after all, only two places for a reunion: Heaven and Hell. And both parties have to be going to the same place.
So asked and anwered Murph. Please listen better. I suspect that you are asking this question because, in your poor understandig of what I have said, you think you have found some inconsistency that you an "nail me" with. (If this is incorect then acept my pologies foir being cynical.)
All Gods blood bought born again children go to heaven... Others don't qualify!... Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins... And that is just what he did!... Brother Glen 
C.S. Murphy
New Member
Latria I am sorry to ruffle you so. I thought by your post that you were saying that even if you can not be assured of your babies election that there may still be a reunion. I thought you meant that even if Morgan is not saved that you might still meet again, apparently that is not what you meant. Just an added note that it's funny for one who starts a thread about some people being nice that you treat me so abruptly. I never meant you any harm nor questioned your intelligence but rather that I didn't agree with your theology.
Christ is Lord of all so let's try to be cival.
Murph
Christ is Lord of all so let's try to be cival.
Murph
Bible-belted
New Member
Murph,
"I am sorry to ruffle you so."
Not ruffled Murph, but thanks for the concern.
"I thought by your post that you were saying that even if you can not be assured of your babies election that there may still be a reunion. I thought you meant that even if Morgan is not saved that you might still meet again, apparently that is not what you meant."
I can't imagine why anyone would think that a reunion would be possible between to people going to two different places. So, no I definitely didn't mean that. Neither can I imagine why you would think I would meant that.
"Just an added note that it's funny for one who starts a thread about some people being nice that you treat me so abruptly. I never meant you any harm nor questioned your intelligence but rather that I didn't agree with your theology."
I did say that I apologise if I have misread your intentions. I also have not been intentionally abrupt. I know you have meant no harm, and I also know you question my theology and not my intelligence. That's fine.
"Christ is Lord of all so let's try to be cival."
I don't believe I've been otherwise. I might add that it would be productive if we also tried to understand each other's position better.
"I am sorry to ruffle you so."
Not ruffled Murph, but thanks for the concern.
"I thought by your post that you were saying that even if you can not be assured of your babies election that there may still be a reunion. I thought you meant that even if Morgan is not saved that you might still meet again, apparently that is not what you meant."
I can't imagine why anyone would think that a reunion would be possible between to people going to two different places. So, no I definitely didn't mean that. Neither can I imagine why you would think I would meant that.
"Just an added note that it's funny for one who starts a thread about some people being nice that you treat me so abruptly. I never meant you any harm nor questioned your intelligence but rather that I didn't agree with your theology."
I did say that I apologise if I have misread your intentions. I also have not been intentionally abrupt. I know you have meant no harm, and I also know you question my theology and not my intelligence. That's fine.
"Christ is Lord of all so let's try to be cival."
I don't believe I've been otherwise. I might add that it would be productive if we also tried to understand each other's position better.
C.S. Murphy
New Member
I think this shows the attitude I have received from you, I appreciate the fact that you deny questioning my intelligence but above by saying "Please listen better" and "in your poor understanding" you prove that you do question me. Also by saying that I am trying to nail you it shows that you accuse me of being mean spirited. I have noticed that if a person begins or ends a point with something like " I don't mean any disrespect" that we probuly do.
In responce to your kind request that we try to understand each other, I can understand that you hold this view I just can't see why. But in fairness let me say what I think about election.
I believe that God in his sovereign will knew before the world began who would and who wouldn't be saved. In my view election ends there, God gave us a free will to choose him, he created us to have fellowship with him. My point is that I believe that the fact that God knows before birth if that soul will be saved does in no way restrict that individuals right to choose Christ. Whosoever will may come. The mind of God simply knows ahead of time who will and who won't. I guess I am saying that when God decided who wouldn't be saved that he made that choice by looking ahead in time and viewing that persons life, if God knew that they were not going to choose him then I suppose I would say that they were elected for hell. God sees so much farther ahead than anyone else can that sometimes we forget how great his power is.
Murph
Bible-belted
New Member
Murph,
Simply put, I find that much of what you have responded to me, in articular your question, proceeds from not understading what I have said. Simple as that. So when I say, "please listen better", I am encouraging you to take more care in reading posts, so as to avoid needless confusion and contention.
As for the nailing comment, Murph, I offered my apology if I have read you wrong, proceeding from cynicism. In fact I have done so twice. Apparantly you will listen to anything I say except my apologies.
Perhaps you should note that "attitude" as well.
Thank you for your presentation of the typical arminian line. I am familiar with it, having held to it at one time.
Simply put, I find that much of what you have responded to me, in articular your question, proceeds from not understading what I have said. Simple as that. So when I say, "please listen better", I am encouraging you to take more care in reading posts, so as to avoid needless confusion and contention.
As for the nailing comment, Murph, I offered my apology if I have read you wrong, proceeding from cynicism. In fact I have done so twice. Apparantly you will listen to anything I say except my apologies.
Perhaps you should note that "attitude" as well.
Thank you for your presentation of the typical arminian line. I am familiar with it, having held to it at one time.
I am reacting against Calvinism, I don't think that I made that too unterribly unclear. I don't get upset because it offends me, I get upset because it offends God.
I have also not misrepresented Calvinism. As soon as we point out the flaws in your doctrine, we suddenly "don't get it".
Instead of saying I misrepresent it, show me actual statements that I said that were false.
Originally posted by Latreia:
Well, I imagine that a God so small that His hands are tied, unable to save a single person until that individual decides of his own free will to believe requires such...
He is able, but it was HIS design and will to give us all a choice. Of course I mentioned this in my post above, but you didn't listen.
Is your God so little that He can't work His will around man if he does have an honest choice to accept or reject the gospel?
Is your God so little, that He had to make it sound like He offered salvation to all, when in reality He didn't?
It is Calvinism that misrepresents grace. God is good even if no one were saved, but God could not be just in awarding unmeritted favour upon some and not others.
I agree, we all deserve hell. God's justice demands that punishment be served for all of us sinners.
Exactly. Christ is God's love portrayed to all. For after all, Christ died for the "sins of the world"
No, on the contrary, my God is indeed a God of justice, it is Calvanism that denies His justice and love.
*All of us have sinned, and not one of us is better then the rest.
*God's justice demands punishment for our sins.
*God's mercy provided that sacrifice for us.
*God's love offered it to all who would accept it. God's love gave us an option of something other then Hell. God's love is extended to everyone, exactly because there is no merit for which God can choose who is or is not saved.
God's unwavering justice demands that His offer of grace be extended to all who are not worthy (all of us). Otherwise it is not justice.
Which half am I ignoring? I understand predestination and forknowledge. I know that God predestined that all who would accept His gift would be His. I know God forknows all things, including those who would accept His grace. I also know that when the Bible says elect it means that. But I also know that when God said "all men", "the world", and "whosoever", he meant that too. He didn't really mean only the elect.
I know that God hasn't been begging and pleading with mankind since the beginning of our creation for no reason. After all, why plead with those who you won't even let respond to your call and why plead with those who you know will respond simply because they have no choice?
The Bible is pointless if there is no choice. You may call it a misrepresentation of Calvinism or whatever you like, that doesn't change the fact that if you hold up your doctrine to the Word of God, these are indeed the facts.
That is reality if all of us go to hell.
You deserve hell, but you are not going. If God's justice demands that the penalty be paid by all then you too should have to pay.
But God's love and mercy offered a way out. The only thing you have to do is sign the release and say that you accept the pardon. God's love and mercy offers this to all who will accept. A God that is love and says that he loves all mankind will offer that pardon to all who will accept. His love will not force us or deny us this option.
God said we are to love everyone. God himself is a God of love, God is love! In offering grace to all God demonstrates that love perfectly.
See, here is where you misrepresent Calvinism again. He either saves all who believe or He saves all whom He makes to believe. There is a grave difference.
If you beleive in Irresistible Grace, don't hide what that means behind some nice sounding words. Be honest as to what that means. With irresistible grace comes irresistible damnation. If you can't help but beleive then that means the rest of us then can not help but to not beleive.
So why even waste your breath in trying to convince me? Why flaunt the fact that you have grace when I can never have none?Originally posted by Latreia:
You can't help believing that way. It was predestined.
~Lorelei
I have read the thread and that is why I ask the question. I hear you say that you believe all babies can go to heaven, though you can't be dogmatic on that. Then you say that only those predestined go to heaven. Are you then saying that you believe that all babies are predestined? I am honestly confused as to how you reconcile the two.
First of all, I do understand what you believe, I confess, I can't understand how you can beleive it.
If you believe as strongly as you do, why do you hide what your belief really means behind such wordings?
If it is your contention that "Man is not kept out of heaven against his will," then this means that man goes to heaven against His will. If God does not Irresistibly alter man's will, then no one comes to God.
If we can not will to come to God, then there is no will at all.
Please show me one. One verse where it says that Christ's death is sufficient for those who will not be given a will to respond to it. One verse where it says grace is irrisistible.
Would you dare to say more? I have agreed with you on many discussions and I had considered you someone I could respect. Please, do tell me just how ignorant I am. Do tell me how many theorys and how many books by Calvin and Augustine and what other great minds I must read to understand the issues and what the scripture says. And while you are at it, please tell me why you even bother with someone like me who is predestined to hell and can't do a thing about it anyway. Go on, share this love that is inside of you.
I daresay that you find it inappropriate because it sheds light on the truth of Calvinsim.
Calvinism teaches that man can not will on his own to come. Therefore the only true statement could be.
Anyone who God wills may come. Only those who have been irresistibly given grace will come. After all, it was not thier will until God changed it.
So without Irrisistible grace I can will to seek God? Without irrisistible Grace I will find salvation? I can make this choice without God changing my will?
Why tell them to seek if man will not do so unless God changes His will? God made us so that we would seek Him and Christ said: "seek and you will find." There is no need to tell those to seek who can't and there is no need to tell those to seek who can't help but doing otherwise.
And this surprises you when those who disagree with you are predestined to never understand?
Of course I do understand the issues, I also understand this typical attitude from one of the "elect" to those whom he believes are one of the damned. That, I understand better then you do attitude, with no true desire or offer to help. I am glad you think you have all the answers, but remember your answers came from a man called Calvin, not Christ.
~Lorelei
I believe the babies are elect. I can’t prove that and I can’t be dogmatic on it. God who controls all things handles that too.
With due, respect, having read your posts here, I do not think you understand what I believe. You have given no evidence of it. Perhaps you do and don’t communicate it in your posts.
I have hidden nothing. I haven’t used words that make it easy for you to make your straw men but that is a lot different than hiding it. I use the words I do for a reason.
That God “irresistibly alters” man’s will is not really the issue. It is called regeneration. If God does not do it then no one comes to God (JOHn 6:44, 65 is where Christ said it and that is why we believe it). But your last statement is a non sequitur. God cannot will to sin. Does that mean he has no will at all? Obviously not. And that is why your position on will cannot stand the biblical data. God is free, infinitely free. Yet God cannot do anything contrary to his nature.
John 3:16. 1 John 2:1; 2 Peter 2:2; -- I Now that’s more than one but it will work. Christ died an infinite death. Go down to the CvA forum, click on the thread “Dave Hunt vs. Charles Haddon Spurgeon” and click on the link in the initial post. It will enlighten you as to what we are talking about without taking up a bunch of space here.
Irresistible is not a word I would choose. I prefer the effectual call. It is God who works in us to will and to do his good pleasure (Phil 2:11). God is working all things after the counsel of his own will (Eph 1:11). In fact, a straightforward reading of Eph 1 will disabuse one of many ways of thinking. Growing up in a more arminian environment, Eph 1 was what converted me. The words of Paul are too clear.
I think perhaps you misunderstood me. I was not calling you ignorant. I was referring to that fact that on this issue, you do not seem familiar with the verses and the issues. That’s all. I am truly sorry that you took offense at it.
No I find it offensive because “hell” is not an adjective, an exclamation, an object of a preposition to be used for emotional effect. It is the eternal conscious torment of all who reject God. Let’s reserve it for that.
What?? Scripture teaches that man cannot will to come on his own (John 6:64-65; 44). IT teaches that all who God draws or gives to the Son will come (John 6:37). Again, remember that irresistible is your word, not mine. I think it paints a light not intended by the users of it.
You missed the point. I said, they can make any choice the want to. No one is forcing them to do something they don’t want to do. As Romans 1-3 is so clear, they do not want to come to God. His evidence is clearly seen but they willfully reject it. YOu are under the impression that we have a bunch of people who are trying to get to heaven but God won't let them becuase they are not elect. That is simply untrue.
But you have wrongly characterized it. We can tell all men to seek because they are commanded to. Some will because God in his sovereign wisdom for reasons that only he knows chose to save some. While you marvel that God would choose to save some but not all, I marvel that God chooses to save any. God commands all men everywhere to repent but elsewhere we are told that repentance is a gift (Rom 2:4; Acts 11:18). God commands men to receive gifts?? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Quick … look back up and make a chart of comparison. In one column mark my quotes of Christ; in the other mark my quotes of Calvin and see who wins. You don’t even have to include the whole Scripture. Just the direct quotes of Christ that are referenced. You will find that I have not quoted Calvin. I have often said and still maintain that I have never read Calvin. My doctrine came from Scripture.
As for the attitude, I have not been condescending to you. I have tried to explain what we believe in a kind way. I Have referenced above the many times that you have misunderstood or mischaracterized my position. This charge of arrogance often flows when people don’t want to talk about Scripture and what it actually says. It is very distressing to me. I would much rather talk Scripture but it is hard to get some passages on the table for serious discussion. I don’t have all the answers. I know that and I have never pretended to. I have a true desire to help people come to a knowledge of the Scriptures. That is why I am a pastor … I love teaching more than anything in the world. I will talk as long as someone will listen (as evidenced by my post … unless you are not “listening” anymore
All your protestations to the contrary, I am not comfortable that you understand what I believe and why I do. That is frustrating to me but probably unavoidable. You seem to base your beliefs on a lot of caricatures that have never been challenged scripturally. As I often say, if you are going to disagree, at least disagree with what we believe, not with what we don’t.
[ August 18, 2002, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
Bible-belted
New Member
Hi Lorelei,
"I am reacting against Calvinism, I don't think that I made that too unterribly unclear. I don't get upset because it offends me, I get upset because it offends God."
It is indeed clear you are reacting against Calvanism. No way to miss that!
I would quibble with your statement of motivation. It would be more accurate to say that it offends God as you understand Him. You should not assume you do understand Him correctly at this point; that is very open to question. After all, I don't see it offending God at all. I see God being glorified as both the just and the justifier.
"I have also not misrepresented Calvinism. As soon as we point out the flaws in your doctrine, we suddenly "don't get it"."
Sorry, but you do make a lot of characterisations of Calvanism that are simply inacurrate. I am not dismissing your cirtiques as a way of avoidingreal difficulties; I am dismissing your critiques bewcause they refer to imagined difficulties. You critique based on a false understanding of Calvanism. That being the case, I address your misunderstanding, and not your critique.
An example of misrepresentation, and the one that prompted me to say that you don't understand:
"For degrading Him to some dicatator who plays with us like pawns on a chessboard."
That is a patently erroneous characterisation of Calvanist beliefs. I would also point out that at least one other Calvanist here says you don't understand. Rather than insist you do understand, while your posts indicate the contrary, it would be more productive for you to actually prove that you do by accurately representing the view in your posts.
"He is able, but it was HIS design and will to give us all a choice. Of course I mentioned this in my post above, but you didn't listen.
Is your God so little that He can't work His will around man if he does have an honest choice to accept or reject the gospel?
Is your God so little, that He had to make it sound like He offered salvation to all, when in reality He didn't?"
Yes we have achoice, we have anindependant will. That is not to say our wilis fre. We are slaves of sin. Slaves are not free. You assume a freedom that does not exist, has not existed since before the Fall.
"God is good even if no one were saved, but God could not be just in awarding unmeritted favour upon some and not others."
That's an obviously nonsensical statement. If favour is unmerrited, then God is being generous beyond our deserts to save even one person. That's the essence of grace; bestoweing favour for no reason other than His own pleasure. He has nercy on those on who He will have mercy. What you are saying is that the favour MUST be bestowed in order for God to be just. That makes God obligated to save. But obligation is the antithesis of grace. This is in part what I mean when I say you misunderstand grace.
"I agree, we all deserve hell. God's justice demands that punishment be served for all of us sinners."
Good.
"Exactly. Christ is God's love portrayed to all. For after all, Christ died for the "sins of the world""
I have no problem with that. I am a 4pt Calvanist after all, and not a 5 pointer.
"No, on the contrary, my God is indeed a God of justice, it is Calvanism that denies His justice and love.
*All of us have sinned, and not one of us is better then the rest.
*God's justice demands punishment for our sins.
*God's mercy provided that sacrifice for us.
*God's love offered it to all who would accept it. God's love gave us an option of something other then Hell. God's love is extended to everyone, exactly because there is no merit for which God can choose who is or is not saved.
God's unwavering justice demands that His offer of grace be extended to all who are not worthy (all of us). Otherwise it is not justice."
Again, I don't argue with this. I am a 4 point calvanist holding to Unlimited Atonement. (I note that a lot of your commentaryis doirected against 5 point Calvanism, rather then the 4 point I espouse, thus providing more evidence that you don't understand what I beleive.)
But you miss something important. While God bestowes the efficacy of the Atonement on all who belive, it is God alone who determines and elects those who will believe.
"That is reality if all of us go to hell."
That all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God is a reality even if N
NE goes to Hell.
"You deserve hell, but you are not going. If God's justice demands that the penalty be paid by all then you too should have to pay."
No I am not going becuase made the atoning sacrifice for my sins, as well as the sins of all. He died for the sins of the world, a death sufficient for all to go to Heaven. But God decreed that some would believe, and thus receive the benefit fo that death, and others would not.
"But God's love and mercy offered a way out. The only thing you have to do is sign the release and say that you accept the pardon. God's love and mercy offers this to all who will accept. A God that is love and says that he loves all mankind will offer that pardon to all who will accept. His love will not force us or deny us this option."
You won't sign the release unless God does a work in you FIRST. We are by natire objects fo wrath, enemies of God, slaves of sin. We don't want to sign the release. Only if God grants us faith can that happen. We don't have it in us to have faith otherwise.
"See, here is where you misrepresent Calvinism again. He either saves all who believe or He saves all whom He makes to believe. There is a grave difference."
I see. I, the Calvanist, misrepresent Calvanism. uh huh... Lorelei, it is obvious you don't understand what I believe at all. In actuality God saves all who believe becuase He makes them to believe. It's called regeneration.
"If you beleive in Irresistible Grace, don't hide what that means behind some nice sounding words. Be honest as to what that means. With irresistible grace comes irresistible damnation. If you can't help but beleive then that means the rest of us then can not help but to not beleive."
There is no point in questioning my honesty. I hide nothing here Lorelei. I have ben most forthcoming.
You are simply incorrect in asserting double predestination. To say that irresistable grace also means irresistable damnation is false. For one thing it is logically a non sequituir. The tweo claims are not a true syllogism. For another what you are saying now denies what you and I have already agreed, namely that people deserve Hell. That means that tehy don't go to Hell because of "irresistable damnation" but because of simple justice. They deserve to be there becuase of their sin.
"God said we are to love everyone. God himself is a God of love, God is love! In offering grace to all God demonstrates that love perfectly."
He offers grace to all, yes. He chooses those who will repsond to it though. No one can repsond to it, no one will respond to it, unless God enables them to first.
But I will again point out that you are making the very arguments that are used to support Universalism. Do you believe that ALL people, without exception, go to Heaven? If not then all you have to do is list all the objections against Universalism, and you will be making arguments that also deny that all babies go to Heaven.
Let me say at this point that the idea that all babies are elect is an intriguing thought. There is nothing to support the idea, IMO, but there is nothing to deny it outright either. it is certainly possible.
But let me also point out that your idea of all babies going to Hell cannot be held consistently with other beliefs you have espoused here. You say that people go to Heaven by exercising their free will to choose God. But babies don't have such a will. Obviously then your soteriology is inconsistent. You need a different way for Babies to go to Heaven than for adults, one that puts an "not applicable" clause onto the doctrine of Original Sin (which you still haven't interacteed with at all).
Caklvanism is consistent on this point. All peopel, babies (however many you like), adults, whatever, go to heaven based on election. One way to be saved
"So why even waste your breath in trying to convince me? Why flaunt the fact that you have grace when I can never have none?"
Lorelei, it was a joke. I have not been flaunting grace, neitehr have I said you can never have any grace. You are very badly misrepresenting me at this point. Why do you do this?
"I am reacting against Calvinism, I don't think that I made that too unterribly unclear. I don't get upset because it offends me, I get upset because it offends God."
It is indeed clear you are reacting against Calvanism. No way to miss that!
I would quibble with your statement of motivation. It would be more accurate to say that it offends God as you understand Him. You should not assume you do understand Him correctly at this point; that is very open to question. After all, I don't see it offending God at all. I see God being glorified as both the just and the justifier.
"I have also not misrepresented Calvinism. As soon as we point out the flaws in your doctrine, we suddenly "don't get it"."
Sorry, but you do make a lot of characterisations of Calvanism that are simply inacurrate. I am not dismissing your cirtiques as a way of avoidingreal difficulties; I am dismissing your critiques bewcause they refer to imagined difficulties. You critique based on a false understanding of Calvanism. That being the case, I address your misunderstanding, and not your critique.
An example of misrepresentation, and the one that prompted me to say that you don't understand:
"For degrading Him to some dicatator who plays with us like pawns on a chessboard."
That is a patently erroneous characterisation of Calvanist beliefs. I would also point out that at least one other Calvanist here says you don't understand. Rather than insist you do understand, while your posts indicate the contrary, it would be more productive for you to actually prove that you do by accurately representing the view in your posts.
"He is able, but it was HIS design and will to give us all a choice. Of course I mentioned this in my post above, but you didn't listen.
Is your God so little that He can't work His will around man if he does have an honest choice to accept or reject the gospel?
Is your God so little, that He had to make it sound like He offered salvation to all, when in reality He didn't?"
Yes we have achoice, we have anindependant will. That is not to say our wilis fre. We are slaves of sin. Slaves are not free. You assume a freedom that does not exist, has not existed since before the Fall.
"God is good even if no one were saved, but God could not be just in awarding unmeritted favour upon some and not others."
That's an obviously nonsensical statement. If favour is unmerrited, then God is being generous beyond our deserts to save even one person. That's the essence of grace; bestoweing favour for no reason other than His own pleasure. He has nercy on those on who He will have mercy. What you are saying is that the favour MUST be bestowed in order for God to be just. That makes God obligated to save. But obligation is the antithesis of grace. This is in part what I mean when I say you misunderstand grace.
"I agree, we all deserve hell. God's justice demands that punishment be served for all of us sinners."
Good.
"Exactly. Christ is God's love portrayed to all. For after all, Christ died for the "sins of the world""
I have no problem with that. I am a 4pt Calvanist after all, and not a 5 pointer.
"No, on the contrary, my God is indeed a God of justice, it is Calvanism that denies His justice and love.
*All of us have sinned, and not one of us is better then the rest.
*God's justice demands punishment for our sins.
*God's mercy provided that sacrifice for us.
*God's love offered it to all who would accept it. God's love gave us an option of something other then Hell. God's love is extended to everyone, exactly because there is no merit for which God can choose who is or is not saved.
God's unwavering justice demands that His offer of grace be extended to all who are not worthy (all of us). Otherwise it is not justice."
Again, I don't argue with this. I am a 4 point calvanist holding to Unlimited Atonement. (I note that a lot of your commentaryis doirected against 5 point Calvanism, rather then the 4 point I espouse, thus providing more evidence that you don't understand what I beleive.)
But you miss something important. While God bestowes the efficacy of the Atonement on all who belive, it is God alone who determines and elects those who will believe.
"That is reality if all of us go to hell."
That all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God is a reality even if N
NE goes to Hell. "You deserve hell, but you are not going. If God's justice demands that the penalty be paid by all then you too should have to pay."
No I am not going becuase made the atoning sacrifice for my sins, as well as the sins of all. He died for the sins of the world, a death sufficient for all to go to Heaven. But God decreed that some would believe, and thus receive the benefit fo that death, and others would not.
"But God's love and mercy offered a way out. The only thing you have to do is sign the release and say that you accept the pardon. God's love and mercy offers this to all who will accept. A God that is love and says that he loves all mankind will offer that pardon to all who will accept. His love will not force us or deny us this option."
You won't sign the release unless God does a work in you FIRST. We are by natire objects fo wrath, enemies of God, slaves of sin. We don't want to sign the release. Only if God grants us faith can that happen. We don't have it in us to have faith otherwise.
"See, here is where you misrepresent Calvinism again. He either saves all who believe or He saves all whom He makes to believe. There is a grave difference."
I see. I, the Calvanist, misrepresent Calvanism. uh huh... Lorelei, it is obvious you don't understand what I believe at all. In actuality God saves all who believe becuase He makes them to believe. It's called regeneration.
"If you beleive in Irresistible Grace, don't hide what that means behind some nice sounding words. Be honest as to what that means. With irresistible grace comes irresistible damnation. If you can't help but beleive then that means the rest of us then can not help but to not beleive."
There is no point in questioning my honesty. I hide nothing here Lorelei. I have ben most forthcoming.
You are simply incorrect in asserting double predestination. To say that irresistable grace also means irresistable damnation is false. For one thing it is logically a non sequituir. The tweo claims are not a true syllogism. For another what you are saying now denies what you and I have already agreed, namely that people deserve Hell. That means that tehy don't go to Hell because of "irresistable damnation" but because of simple justice. They deserve to be there becuase of their sin.
"God said we are to love everyone. God himself is a God of love, God is love! In offering grace to all God demonstrates that love perfectly."
He offers grace to all, yes. He chooses those who will repsond to it though. No one can repsond to it, no one will respond to it, unless God enables them to first.
But I will again point out that you are making the very arguments that are used to support Universalism. Do you believe that ALL people, without exception, go to Heaven? If not then all you have to do is list all the objections against Universalism, and you will be making arguments that also deny that all babies go to Heaven.
Let me say at this point that the idea that all babies are elect is an intriguing thought. There is nothing to support the idea, IMO, but there is nothing to deny it outright either. it is certainly possible.
But let me also point out that your idea of all babies going to Hell cannot be held consistently with other beliefs you have espoused here. You say that people go to Heaven by exercising their free will to choose God. But babies don't have such a will. Obviously then your soteriology is inconsistent. You need a different way for Babies to go to Heaven than for adults, one that puts an "not applicable" clause onto the doctrine of Original Sin (which you still haven't interacteed with at all).
Caklvanism is consistent on this point. All peopel, babies (however many you like), adults, whatever, go to heaven based on election. One way to be saved
"So why even waste your breath in trying to convince me? Why flaunt the fact that you have grace when I can never have none?"
Lorelei, it was a joke. I have not been flaunting grace, neitehr have I said you can never have any grace. You are very badly misrepresenting me at this point. Why do you do this?
The 5 Points of Calvinism are T.U.L.I.P. I will attempt to explain each one as I believe Calvinism sees it.
Total Depravity
Man is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. Man, being dead, is totally unable to respond to the gospel message without the Holy Spirit first regenerating him. Without this, man will never be able to come to a knowledge of Christ.
Verses used to support these claims: Romans 5:12, Eph 2:1-5
Unconditional Election
Before the foundation of the world, God by His own will, chose whom would be His. The elect were chosen simply based upon God's good pleasure. They were not chosen based upon merit. Man, however, is still responsible for believing the gospel message.
God in his sovereignty chose some for glory and some for damnation, but each person is responsible for believing in the saving work of Christ. Both must be true.
Though good works can not save a man, good works are a result of God's saving grace.
Verses used to support these claims: Romans 9, Eph 1:4-8, Eph 2:8-10
Limited Atonement
Christ's death was solely for those whom God gave to Him. To declare that Christ died for all men would mean that all men must be saved. Since all men are not saved, then Christ can not have died for all. To say that he did would deny His sovereignty and ability to save all men.
Christ died for all sinners and he will not lose any of those whom the Father has given him. This fact lifts up evangelism rather then negates it's purpose.
Verses used to support this doctrine John 17:9, Matthew 26:28, Eph 5:25, John 6:37
Irresistible Grace
All whom the Father elects will come to Christ. It assures us that when the gospel is preached, all whom are chosen will respond accordingly.
Men come to Christ when the Father draws them and His Spirit leads the elect to repentance.
Verses used to support this claim John 6:37,44, Romans 8:14
Perseverance of the Saints
All those whom God has chosen will remain with God. Those whom are regenerated will also be glorified. The Bible assures the elect that Christ will never lose them.
verses used to support this claim: Romans 8:28-39, Phil 1:6, John 6:39
*********************************************************
Now that I have shared what I believe you actually teach, let me share with you why I think it is wrong. Instead of speaking to your doctrine directly I would rather look at the scriptural basis for each claim. After all, I get my belief from the Word of God and Calvinism also claims the same thing. Let us look at the Word of God in context.
As I am sure most of you will agree, there are many religions (cults as some call them) that can find a few scriptures to back up their claim and therefore say that thier doctrine is based upon the Word of God, such as do the Oneness Pentecostals and those whom believe in Baptismal Regeneration etc. Because of this, we must remember that each verse we read must not only be in unity with our doctrine, but must be in unity when taken in context. The context begins by looking at the surrounding verses, then chapters, then books then the Bible as a whole. If a verse seems to imply something that is contrary to the whole of scripture it must be looked at more thoroughly.
With that said, let me begin by touching on some of the verses that have been used to support Calvinism, or whatever you would care to call this belief.
Speaking to Total Depravity
Let us look at the scriptures to see if the word dead always meant incapable.
In the very next chapter we read
Even Christ said that those who are dead will hear and those who hear will live!
(Of course here is where part of our problem lies. You believe that one must believe, but that can't happen until after regeneration. I believe that regeneration comes after we believe. This is where we disagree. This is not a misunderstanding on my part.)
Speaking to Unconditional Election
Let us look at these verses within context.
Paul is speaking about the Isrealite nation. Remember, the Isrealites were God's chosen people. When Christ came, that chosen nation rejected Him and crucified Him. Now we have salvation not simply to a nation, but to all mankind, even those nations that had been opposed to Isreal.
"Rom 9:14-15
15 For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
NIV"
Is this really saying that God will therefore be unmerciful to some simply because it is His good pleasure to do so?
Indeed God does show mercy to whom he wants and judgement upon whom He desires, but the Word of God shows us how he chooses whom will have mercy and whom will not. Read the last verse in the chapter!
This is explained in Chapter 10.
Paul was explaining that God showed His punishment upon even His chosen nation. Not because He simply wanted to, but because they rejected His Son.
But Paul didn't want to leave it at that, he wanted God's chosen to be saved.
It clearly states that God's will is to give eternal life to those who believe. It is never implied that the belief can only come from God, and therefore only those whom He elected can believe.
This is another area where I am berated for not understanding. I understand that you think this means; that only those whom the Father mysteriously draws will believe. I don't believe that is ever taught in scripture. That doctrine is read into these verses.
Speaking to Irresistible Grace
I spoke to some of that in the section above referring to John 6:37. Simply stated that Christ is given only whom the Father chooses does not imply that the Father only chooses whom he wills at a whim. It clearly states that He chooses to give all those whom believe. There is no implication that this means He must will us to believe before we can do so. That is simply not in the text.
His sovereignty is displayed because He chose the means for which we can come to Him.
His mercy is displayed in his offer of grace, that by accepting His son's sacrifice for our sins we no longer need to be punished for our own sins
His justice is displayed by making death necessary for all sins. Whether by Christ's for those who believe, or eternal death for those who do not.
His love is displayed in offering this to all men. By allowing us a choice, God draws all of us towards Him, but not all of us care to accpet. His love is demonstrated in giving that choice to each one of us.
Speaking to Perseverance of the Saints
There is not a lot for me to say on this subject. I too believe that once God has sealed us with His Spirit we can not be lost. We just disagree upon when that sealing takes place.
I believe that happens when we believe, not to make us to believe.
~Lorelei
[ August 19, 2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Lorelei ]
Total Depravity
Man is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. Man, being dead, is totally unable to respond to the gospel message without the Holy Spirit first regenerating him. Without this, man will never be able to come to a knowledge of Christ.
Verses used to support these claims: Romans 5:12, Eph 2:1-5
Unconditional Election
Before the foundation of the world, God by His own will, chose whom would be His. The elect were chosen simply based upon God's good pleasure. They were not chosen based upon merit. Man, however, is still responsible for believing the gospel message.
God in his sovereignty chose some for glory and some for damnation, but each person is responsible for believing in the saving work of Christ. Both must be true.
Though good works can not save a man, good works are a result of God's saving grace.
Verses used to support these claims: Romans 9, Eph 1:4-8, Eph 2:8-10
Limited Atonement
Christ's death was solely for those whom God gave to Him. To declare that Christ died for all men would mean that all men must be saved. Since all men are not saved, then Christ can not have died for all. To say that he did would deny His sovereignty and ability to save all men.
Christ died for all sinners and he will not lose any of those whom the Father has given him. This fact lifts up evangelism rather then negates it's purpose.
Verses used to support this doctrine John 17:9, Matthew 26:28, Eph 5:25, John 6:37
Irresistible Grace
All whom the Father elects will come to Christ. It assures us that when the gospel is preached, all whom are chosen will respond accordingly.
Men come to Christ when the Father draws them and His Spirit leads the elect to repentance.
Verses used to support this claim John 6:37,44, Romans 8:14
Perseverance of the Saints
All those whom God has chosen will remain with God. Those whom are regenerated will also be glorified. The Bible assures the elect that Christ will never lose them.
verses used to support this claim: Romans 8:28-39, Phil 1:6, John 6:39
*********************************************************
Now that I have shared what I believe you actually teach, let me share with you why I think it is wrong. Instead of speaking to your doctrine directly I would rather look at the scriptural basis for each claim. After all, I get my belief from the Word of God and Calvinism also claims the same thing. Let us look at the Word of God in context.
As I am sure most of you will agree, there are many religions (cults as some call them) that can find a few scriptures to back up their claim and therefore say that thier doctrine is based upon the Word of God, such as do the Oneness Pentecostals and those whom believe in Baptismal Regeneration etc. Because of this, we must remember that each verse we read must not only be in unity with our doctrine, but must be in unity when taken in context. The context begins by looking at the surrounding verses, then chapters, then books then the Bible as a whole. If a verse seems to imply something that is contrary to the whole of scripture it must be looked at more thoroughly.
With that said, let me begin by touching on some of the verses that have been used to support Calvinism, or whatever you would care to call this belief.
Speaking to Total Depravity
This does indeed say we are dead in sins. Because the word dead is used does mean that we are totally incapable of responding to the gospel that will bring us light?
Let us look at the scriptures to see if the word dead always meant incapable.
In the very next chapter we read
Does the fact that once regenerated we have now died to sin mean that we are now incapable of commiting sin? I would hope you would not agree, for if you say that you do not sin, you are deceived (1 John 1:8-10).
Even Christ said that those who are dead will hear and those who hear will live!
So we see, that because we are dead in sins, this does not mean we are incapable of responding to that which will give us life. As I have stated before, we are told to rise from the dead so that Christ can shine on us!
Another verse which speaks to death:
We have already discussed the use of the word dead. Let us look in the context of this book to see just how we were " made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved."
We are included when we hear, not before. Though the Bible does say we are dead in trespasses in sin, there is no scripture that says we are incapable of responding to the gospel until the regeneration. On the contrary, we are told that when we believe we become children of God. No where does it say we can not believe until God regenerates us. On the contrary we are told often that we must believe in order to receive Christ, and not once are we told that we must be selectively drawn before this decision can even be our desire.
(Of course here is where part of our problem lies. You believe that one must believe, but that can't happen until after regeneration. I believe that regeneration comes after we believe. This is where we disagree. This is not a misunderstanding on my part.)
Speaking to Unconditional Election
According to Calvinism this is proof that God has elected some of us for glory and the rest to damnation and it is not in our power to question God.
Let us look at these verses within context.
Paul is speaking about the Isrealite nation. Remember, the Isrealites were God's chosen people. When Christ came, that chosen nation rejected Him and crucified Him. Now we have salvation not simply to a nation, but to all mankind, even those nations that had been opposed to Isreal.
"Rom 9:14-15
15 For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
NIV"
Is this really saying that God will therefore be unmerciful to some simply because it is His good pleasure to do so?
Indeed God does show mercy to whom he wants and judgement upon whom He desires, but the Word of God shows us how he chooses whom will have mercy and whom will not. Read the last verse in the chapter!
Christ was sent and Christ was indeed a stumbling block to some. Who was he a stumbling block to? Those God preordained that He would be? No, he was a stumbling block to those who did not put their trust in Him and believe in Him.
This is explained in Chapter 10.
To say that the potter can mold who he wants for what he wants is accurate. But scripture is clear that God shows mercy to anyone who believes. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified.
Paul was explaining that God showed His punishment upon even His chosen nation. Not because He simply wanted to, but because they rejected His Son.
But Paul didn't want to leave it at that, he wanted God's chosen to be saved.
Do you think he desired something that even God did not? God also desires that all men be saved.
Speaking to Limited Atonement
In this particular prayer Jesus was praying for those who God had given Him. There is nothing wrong in this at all, nor does it mean Christ doesn't care about those who are not His. This prayer was for those who God gave them. He was about to physically leave the earth and he prayed for those who would be left behind being persecuted for His sake. Later he then prays for those "who will believe". Again, this does not mean that he didn't want all to come to Him, only that during this prayer he prayed for those who actually did.
To say that His blood was poured out for many means that it was not indeed poured out for all contradicts many other scriptures.
These verses verify that Christ died for the whole world. The only way it can fit Calvinistic doctrine is to change the meaning of the word world. The scripture never gives us any indication that anything other then the entire world was ever meant. To change that to mean the elect is to tamper with the Word of God, something none of us should dare do.
This verse does not say only the church. It is a true statement without inferring that he gave himselp up for no one else.
And we see who the Father gives to Christ in verse 40
Only those who are given to Christ by the Father are His. But we see that God gives to Christ all who believe not all whom He made to do so.
It clearly states that God's will is to give eternal life to those who believe. It is never implied that the belief can only come from God, and therefore only those whom He elected can believe.
This is another area where I am berated for not understanding. I understand that you think this means; that only those whom the Father mysteriously draws will believe. I don't believe that is ever taught in scripture. That doctrine is read into these verses.
Speaking to Irresistible Grace
I spoke to some of that in the section above referring to John 6:37. Simply stated that Christ is given only whom the Father chooses does not imply that the Father only chooses whom he wills at a whim. It clearly states that He chooses to give all those whom believe. There is no implication that this means He must will us to believe before we can do so. That is simply not in the text.
This verse says that no one can come unless the Father draws them. This does not say that all whom the Father draws will come. Calvinism cries out that God can not be soveriegn if all that he draws do not come. That is not the case. As we have seen within the text, God chose to give to Christ those who believe. His sovereignty is displayed in the fact that His perfect will can be done in spite of our choices.
His sovereignty is displayed because He chose the means for which we can come to Him.
His mercy is displayed in his offer of grace, that by accepting His son's sacrifice for our sins we no longer need to be punished for our own sins
His justice is displayed by making death necessary for all sins. Whether by Christ's for those who believe, or eternal death for those who do not.
His love is displayed in offering this to all men. By allowing us a choice, God draws all of us towards Him, but not all of us care to accpet. His love is demonstrated in giving that choice to each one of us.
Speaking to Perseverance of the Saints
There is not a lot for me to say on this subject. I too believe that once God has sealed us with His Spirit we can not be lost. We just disagree upon when that sealing takes place.
I believe that happens when we believe, not to make us to believe.
Now, I am hoping that these rude and elementary accusations that have been made against me may be stopped. Disagreeing is one thing, to act as though I have no knowledge of the Word or the issue at hand is childish. My posts have accurately displayed my knowledge, it just hasn't done so to your liking. That is fine. But please, can we leave this childish behavior behind us now?
~Lorelei
[ August 19, 2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Lorelei ]
I do this because it is true. Whether you want to believe it or not, your doctrine reads this way.
You doctrine says that those who are predestined to hell have no chance at anything else.
You said I was predestined to think this way.
You do the math.
Your doctrine doesn't make such a joke sound very funny.
~Lorelei
Bible-belted
New Member
I do this because it is true. Whether you want to believe it or not, your doctrine reads this way.
You doctrine says that those who are predestined to hell have no chance at anything else.
You said I was predestined to think this way.
You do the math.
Your doctrine doesn't make such a joke sound very funny.
~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]Lorelei,
Your Math is 2+2=5.
I did not say that you have no chanve for grace.
I did jokingly say that you were predestined to believe in free will. But that says nothing about your actual spiritual condition.
You are simply misrepresenting me here. I do not say, either directly or by implication, what you attribute to me. No matter how much you claim otherwise, you are simply not representing things fairly or accurately.
In that case, I really doubt there is any way to reasonably discuss the matter with you.
And about your presentation of Calvanism:
1) I am not a 5 pt Calvanist. I am 4 pt. So a lot of your "refutation" does not apply.
2) You state the definition of the doctrines reasonably well ( though I would quibble here and there, and you still fail to address 4 pt Calvanism), but not their biblical basis. You ignore the most direct evidence for the belefs. That's a strawman.
Loralei,
Having read your "refutation" I remain convinced that you are not aware of what the real issues are. That is fine. Contrary to the view of some, that is not arrogant or childish; you simply have not addressed the issues or the verses in their contexts. That is disappointing. However, since there is ample material available that answers your questions, I will not take the time or the space to address them here. I will encourage you to rethink this issue and study some of the things that you are saying.
You briefly reference John 6, the words of Christ but fail to address teh whole issue at hand. In vv. 64-65 Christ clearly says that some "could not come" (are not able -- an issue of ability) becuase God hadn't given it to them. Regardless of what you think about sin, this clearly addresses their ability and tells us that some did not have the ability to come to God. Therefore, if you say that all men have the ability to come to God, you are contradicting Scripture. Christ said some didn't. In v. 37, Christ uses the same word (given) when he says that "all that the Father gives will come." This is certaintly and it is all inclusive. So what we have are two very clearly groups both related to the Father's giving: No one can come unless the Father gives it to him to come; All that the FAther give will come. These groups are mutually exclusive. How you can suggest that there is a group of people who were "given" but didn't come is beyond me. It simply isn't there. This is but a small example of how you have failed to take into account the full teaching of Scripture.
I do encourage you to continue to study as will I.
Having read your "refutation" I remain convinced that you are not aware of what the real issues are. That is fine. Contrary to the view of some, that is not arrogant or childish; you simply have not addressed the issues or the verses in their contexts. That is disappointing. However, since there is ample material available that answers your questions, I will not take the time or the space to address them here. I will encourage you to rethink this issue and study some of the things that you are saying.
You briefly reference John 6, the words of Christ but fail to address teh whole issue at hand. In vv. 64-65 Christ clearly says that some "could not come" (are not able -- an issue of ability) becuase God hadn't given it to them. Regardless of what you think about sin, this clearly addresses their ability and tells us that some did not have the ability to come to God. Therefore, if you say that all men have the ability to come to God, you are contradicting Scripture. Christ said some didn't. In v. 37, Christ uses the same word (given) when he says that "all that the Father gives will come." This is certaintly and it is all inclusive. So what we have are two very clearly groups both related to the Father's giving: No one can come unless the Father gives it to him to come; All that the FAther give will come. These groups are mutually exclusive. How you can suggest that there is a group of people who were "given" but didn't come is beyond me. It simply isn't there. This is but a small example of how you have failed to take into account the full teaching of Scripture.
I do encourage you to continue to study as will I.
I remained convinced that you are going to keep skirting the real issues to avoid having to face that fact that there are indeed serious flaws with your doctrine. That also is fine.
The fact that you think there is ample material available to answer my questions makes me think that the answers can not then be found in the Word of God alone.
To tell me that I have not addressed the issues or kept the verses in thier context and then refuse to take the time or the space to show how that is indeed true is what I would call arrogant.
As I would you.
I breifly dealt with a lot of things in my post and yet you have not offered me so brief a rebuttal. Would you care to briefly explain how I have missed the whole issue.
Again, what we consider the issue varies because we disagree, not because we do not understand each other.
With each instance that you demand that I am lacking understanding of the issue you are revealing your lack of understanding mine.
On the contrary, I have shown within the full teaching of scripture why this verse can not mean what you say it means. Are you now adamant that the Lord's supper does become the literal flesh and blood of Christ because of what Christ said in verse 53?
It says God must enable them but I don't see where it says some are not enabled. You read your doctrine into verses and ignore many other scriptures to the contrary. We must look at the whole of scripture.
You offer what seems contradictory to what I have stated without addressing a single one of the many verses I have shown you in context.
This has taken this thread entirely off topic and therefore I will refrain from speaking on it any further in this thread. If you would like to start another one then feel free. I will not however participate in the Calvinism v Armanian forum. I consider myself neither.
If you do start another thread, please touch on some of the verses that I have offered and show me how I have taken them out of context. And if you use verses please quote them and not paraphrase them to say what you want them to. It annoys me to hear the word elect in verses that never speak the word.
~Lorelei
Do those who are predestined to go to hell have any other option? Yes or no?
Do you believe some are predestined to hell? If so, I find any type of joke about it offensive.
You offended me by your comment.
You have made it clear that you believe that it is my being offended that is in the wrong and not your statement that offended me.
I too see no reason to keep discussing it.
There are still 4 points left.
Like Pastor Larry, you are quick to state that I ignore the most direct evidence but fail to show me what that evidence is.
If you are going to accuse me of lying, ignoring or misrepresenting then please show valid scriptural proof as to how that is so.
~Lorelei
Name a "flaw" or a "real issue" that I have avoided? I am not going to respond to your post point by point. It would take more time and space to do it justice than this forum will permit. If you think there is flaw, let's deal with them one at a time.
I do think the answers can be foudn in the word of God alone. That is how I came to believe what I believe. I did not get my doctrine from anywhere else. (I rarely read Calvinistic writers today.) But when you refuse to let the word of God say what it says. You have decided to read the Scriptures through the lens that you are comfortable with. i am not willing to do that.
Bible-belted
New Member
Lorelei:
"Do those who are predestined to go to hell have any other option? Yes or no?"
What has this question to do with the fact that I have not said that you have no chance for grace? I have NOT questioned whether you have received grace! How does this question of yours address that?
Second let me point AGAIN, that I don't believe that people are predestined to Hell.
"Do you believe some are predestined to hell? If so, I find any type of joke about it offensive."
I have answered this question numerous times.
"You offended me by your comment.
You have made it clear that you believe that it is my being offended that is in the wrong and not your statement that offended me.
I too see no reason to keep discussing it."
It was a joke. So you didnt find it funny. That;s unfortunate, but that doesn't excuse the way you misrepresent me. I have not said you have no chance for grace. Your being offended being in the wrong?? Never said that. My comment offendd you but my statement did not? My comment and my staement are two different things?
"Like Pastor Larry, you are quick to state that I ignore the most direct evidence but fail to show me what that evidence is."
You are the one who claimed to understand what we believe. that being the case we expected that you should be able to come up with that evidence for yourself. You are the one who failed to do that.
If you want to go over particulars then fine. But it was supposed to be your burden to express our belief so as to show you understand it. We won't do that for you. If you have a particular item where you feel you actually did give the best case for the beliefs contrary to what we say, then say so and we'll go over it. Take up Larry's offer. The point here is understanding. If you will take the time to calmly and rationally learn what we believe without trying to fihure out how you're going to refute it in the process (do that and you'll not be learning nor listening) you will come away more knowledgeable, and with a better understanding of our beliefs.
"Do those who are predestined to go to hell have any other option? Yes or no?"
What has this question to do with the fact that I have not said that you have no chance for grace? I have NOT questioned whether you have received grace! How does this question of yours address that?
Second let me point AGAIN, that I don't believe that people are predestined to Hell.
"Do you believe some are predestined to hell? If so, I find any type of joke about it offensive."
I have answered this question numerous times.
"You offended me by your comment.
You have made it clear that you believe that it is my being offended that is in the wrong and not your statement that offended me.
I too see no reason to keep discussing it."
It was a joke. So you didnt find it funny. That;s unfortunate, but that doesn't excuse the way you misrepresent me. I have not said you have no chance for grace. Your being offended being in the wrong?? Never said that. My comment offendd you but my statement did not? My comment and my staement are two different things?
"Like Pastor Larry, you are quick to state that I ignore the most direct evidence but fail to show me what that evidence is."
You are the one who claimed to understand what we believe. that being the case we expected that you should be able to come up with that evidence for yourself. You are the one who failed to do that.
If you want to go over particulars then fine. But it was supposed to be your burden to express our belief so as to show you understand it. We won't do that for you. If you have a particular item where you feel you actually did give the best case for the beliefs contrary to what we say, then say so and we'll go over it. Take up Larry's offer. The point here is understanding. If you will take the time to calmly and rationally learn what we believe without trying to fihure out how you're going to refute it in the process (do that and you'll not be learning nor listening) you will come away more knowledgeable, and with a better understanding of our beliefs.